Couldn't it be that if Wilson said things to his lawyers that did not match his obvious intention then it proves he was planning deception from the get go?
i.e. If the debate is about whether it was a legitimate slush fund or something else and he has claimed X happened, but the documents say Y happened, that would not necessarily mean
❖ had anything to do with it. I'd suggest that is more likely, and that's why your best buds at The Australian deigned this story to be so important it isn't on their front page currently. Typical.
They refuse to cover this story.
Medusula - try harder.